I have seen the video and it is pretty sensible and definitely helps the debate around the fire. Either ways what caused fires is far from settled, the fact that climate change has anything to do with it is also disputed "fact".
https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/climate-change-fores...
https://climatefeedback.org/responding-to-stossel-tv-video-o...
If we’re to have productive discourse, we must all act in good faith and look at opposing arguments with the most charitable interpretation reasonably possible, otherwise we risk arguing against an interpretation of viewpoint that others may not have or agree with.
EDIT: having looked closer at the fact check website referenced, most of the length seems to be from references to research and expert testimony. The actual rebuttal is indeed a paragraph or two at the very top of the page.
Is the presentation of the data here your primary objection?
To claim Stossel was being misleading, they'd need to successfully argue that climate had a greater impact than forest management practices. This rebuttal article only "This is at odds with the majority of wildfire scientists, who suggest that both are major factors in driving the changes we are seeing".
This is an NPO whose full reason to exist is to increase climate awareness, so I'm sure they don't like the idea that climate wasn't the primary factor, but I don't see a good argument for why we should consider climate the primary factor vs forest management.
Their rebuttal reads like someone scrambling after their hand was caught in the cookie jar overstepping their bounds.
EDIT (to reply because max thread depth): "They are rebutting the claim that climate change is not a factor at all, which Stossel does claim in his video" - What? I watched the video - you linked it. He absolutely did not claim "climate change is not a factor at all" - he explicitly said that it IS a factor it just isn't the main one.
No. Stossel would need to prove that forest management practices had a greater impact than climate change, and that the fact checkers knew that, and that they deliberately lied.
You don't have to prove that you're correct if someone sues you for defamation. The standards for defamation are a lot higher than that.
To take this a step further, they don't even need to prove Stossel actually made that claim. The fact that a reasonable person could interpret Stossel as having made the claim that climate change was not a contributing factor (evidenced by multiple scientists chiming in that they felt the label was appropriate) would be enough of a defense.
Finally, they probably don't even need to prove that they thought Stossel made the claim, because calling someone misleading or saying that their statements are missing context likely doesn't rise to the level of defamation regardless of any of the above points.
https://climatefeedback.org/responding-to-stossel-tv-video-o...
We can all agree that climate change increased fuel aridity in forests (which is what lots of research indicates) and yet agree with Stossel's point that bad forest management lead to those forests burning down. And this need not even be a politically charged issue as anyone who cares deeply about climate should also be upset with forests burning down.
> For years, they and environmentalists increased the risk of big fires by opposing the thinning of forests. > The town of Berry Creek, California, tried to get permits to legally clear their forest. For two years, regulators delayed approval. This year, fire destroyed the town.
Who is responsible here for the forest fire ? While many academicians will talk about "climate change", the local people will be right to see the regulatory hurdles as the biggest reason.
We can all acknowledge the fact that climate change is real, california's temperatures warmed by 3 degrees in last 50 years, that this increases probability and scope of fire AND still agree with Stossel's point that bad forest management, California's failure to create sensible policies that would have helped us manage these forests better are key contributor to the damage these fires have done in California.